<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
<title></title>
</head>
<body>
<div name="messageBodySection">No court outside the US and perhaps in the US will give a dead rat's fuzzy behind.<br />
<br />
And I am amazed at saying it makes sense to the (technical) community asking for it but nix it because alledgely courts are too stupid to understand.<br />
<br />
My inderstanding is that courts figure stuff out...<br />
<br />
And the rest as Nigel rightly points out are tactics too.<br />
<br />
Since when has a court accepted "because I say so" as foundation in law? Even if ICANN is trying this again and again.<br />
<br />
Courts in common law jurisdictions will consider a TLD to be property or not as they see fit.<br />
<br />
ICANN has ABSOLUTELY no role with regards to ccTLDs, in particular those before ICANN (unless there is a contract). Never mind this primacy nonsense...<br />
<br />
To combine Paul's search for a better term with Roelof's point that it doesn't belong here, I would propose to ask the IAB for clarification on both.<br />
<br />
el</div>
<div name="messageSignatureSection"><br />
--<br />
Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 5s<br /></div>
<div name="messageReplySection"><br />
On 1 Nov 2015, 01:40 +0400, Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net>, wrote:<br />
<blockquote type="cite">Paul makes some interesting tactical points.<br />
<br />
But can you point to ANY legal foundation where ICANN actually IS a<br />
"primary head of power"???<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
On 10/31/2015 08:32 PM, Paul Twomey wrote:<br />
<blockquote type="cite">Becky<br />
<br />
I think the points made by Malcolm and the IAB make a lot of sense when<br />
viewed from the perspective of the engineering/technical community.<br />
<br />
But I would observe that the wording will interpreted with most impact<br />
on daily work of the ICANN community not by non technical entities, but<br />
particularly by the courts in various lands and the ongoing<br />
international "politics of technology" processes. When I look at the<br />
proposed wording from that perspective, I worry that shifting to<br />
"support" in the Mission statement could result in destabilising<br />
uncertainty. As we have seen in various litigation (to give only one<br />
example, litigation about trying to get TLDs recognized as property<br />
which the Courts can order moved from one party to another), the ability<br />
for the Judge's not to have any doubt as to the primacy of the ICANN<br />
(including community) role in determining the general rules/approach in<br />
this area has been important.<br />
<br />
It could be destabilising if we leave the impression in the<br />
politico/legal arena that ICANN only plays a supporting role, and that<br />
they can go looking for another primary head of power.<br />
<br />
I admit I am writing this from something of a paranoid view, but then I<br />
do have sympathy with Andy Grove's observation that only the paranoid<br />
survive.<br />
<br />
I can also understand why the IAB questions the operational accuracy of<br />
the use of the term "coordinates" in the opening sentence of the Mission<br />
Statement as it now stands.<br />
<br />
Is there a way of getting a more robust term than just "support"?<br />
<br />
Paul<br />
<br />
Paul Twomey<br /></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"><br /></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">[...]</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</div>
</body>
</html>